Gotcha sorry. [laughter] i wanted to ask you about public confusion, connected with Attorney General barrs release of your report. I will be coding you are in march 27th letter. Sarah, in that letter and at several other times did you convey to the Attorney General that the introductions and executive some summaries accurately i have to say the letter itself speaks for itself. And those were your words and that . Continuing with your letter, you are to the Attorney General that the summary letter the department sent to congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of march 24th did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this offices work and conclusions. Is that correct . Again, i rely on the letter itself for its terms. Thank you. What was it about the reports context, nature, substance that the attorneys letter did not capture . I think we captured that in the in the March 27th Responsive letter. This is from the letter. Im directing you to the letter itself. You finish that letter by saying there is no public confusion about critical aspects as a result of our investigation. Could you tell us specifically some of the public confusion you identified . Again, i go back to the letter. It speaks for itself. Could Attorney General barr have avoided public confusion if he had released her a summary and executive introduction and summary . I dont feel comfortable speculating on that. Shifting to may 30th, the Attorney General in an interview with cbs news said that you could have reached you could have reached a decision as to whether it was Criminal Activity on the part of the
present. Did the Attorney General or his staff ever tell you that he thought you should make a decision on whether the president engaged in Criminal Activity . Im not going to speak to what the Attorney General was thinking or saying. If the Attorney General had directed you ordered you to make a decision on whether the president engaged in Criminal Activity, would you have so don done . I cannot answer that question in a vacuum. Director mueller, again, i think you for being here. I agree with your march 27th letter. There was public confusion and the president took full advantage of that confusion by falsely claiming your report found no obstruction. Let us be clear your report did not exonerate the president. Instead, it provided substantial evidence of obstruction of justice leaving congress to do its duty. We shall not shrink from that duty. I yield back. The gentle lady yields back. Mr. Chairman, i have a Point Of Inquiry on your left. The gentleman will state his Point Of Inquiry. Was the point of this hearing to get mr. Mueller to recommend impeachment . That is not a fair Point Of Inquiry. The gentle lady from florida is recognized. Mr. Chairman Director Mueller the gentle lady from florida is recognized. You are a patriot. I want to refer you now to volume two, page 158. You wrote that the president s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the president declined to carry out orders or see to his requests. Is that right . That is accurate, that is what we found. And you are basically referring to Advisors Who Disobey The President s orders, Like White House counsel don mcgahn, former Trump Campaign manager corey lewandowski. Is that right . We have not specified the persons mentioned. In page 158, white House Counsel don mcgahn did not tell
the acting Attorney General that the Special Counsel must be removed, but was instead prepared to resign over the president s orders. He also explained that an attempt to obstruct justice does not have to succeed to be a crime, right . True. Simply attempting to obstruct justice can be a crime, correct . Yes. So even though the president s aides refused to carry out his orders to interfere with your investigation, that is not a defense to obstruction of justice by this president , is it . Im not going to speculate. To reiterate, simply trying to obstruct justice can be a crime, correct . Yes. You say about the president s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, and thats because not all of his efforts were unsuccessful. Right . Are you reading into what we have written in the report . At i was going to ask you if you could just tell me which ones you had in mind as successful when he wrote that sentence. Im going to pass on that. Yeah. [laughs] Director Mueller, today we have talked a lot about the separate acts by this president , but you also wrote in your report that the overall pattern of the president s conduct towards the investigations can shed light on the nature of the president s acts, and the inferences can be drawn about his intent. Correct . An accurate recitation from the report. Right. On page 158, again, i think its important for everyone to note that the president s conduct had a significant change when he realized that it was that the investigations were conducted to investigate his obstruction acts. In other words, when the American People are deciding
whether the president committed obstruction of justice, they need to look at all the president s conduct and overall pattern of behaviors. Is that correct . I dont disagree. Figure. Dr. Mueller. Director mueller. Doctor, also. I will designate that, too. I have certainly made up my mind about what we have reviewed today, that it meets the elements of obstruction. Including whether there was Corrupt Intent. What is clear is that anyone else, including some members of congress, would have been charged with crimes for these acts. We would not have allowed this behavior from any of the previous 44 president s. We should not allow it now or for the future, to protect our democracy. And, yes, we will continue to investigate. Because as you clearly state at the end of your report, no one is above the law. I yield back my time. Speak of the gentle lady yields back. The gentle lady from texas. Director mueller, you wrote in your report that you determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. Was not in part because of an opinion by the deferment of Justice Office of Legal Counsel that a sitting president cant be charged with a crime . Yes. Director mueller, at your ma, he explained that the opening the opinion says that the constitution requires a process other than the criminal Justice System to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing. That process, other than the criminal Justice System, for accusing a president of wrongdoing is that impeachment . Im not going to comment on that. In your report, you also wrote that you did not want to potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing president ial misconduct. For the nonlawyers in the room, what did you mean by potentially preempt constitutional processes . Im not going to try to explain that. That actually is coming from page 1 of volume to 2. In the footnote, what are those constitutional processes . I think i heard you mention at least one. Impeachment, correct . Im not going to comment. Okay. That is one of the constitutional processes listed in the report in the footnote in volume 2. Your report documents the many ways the president sought to interfere with your investigation. And you state in your report on page ten, volume 2, interfering with a congressional inquiry or investigation with Corrupt Intent can also constitute obstruction of justice. True. Well, the president has told us that he intends to fight all the subpoenas. His continued efforts to interfere with investigations of his potential misconduct certainly reinforce the importance of the process the constitution requires to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing, as you cited in the report. This hearing has been very helpful to this committee, as it exercises its constitutional duty to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment against the president. I agree with you, Director Mueller, that we all have a vital role in holding this president accountable for his actions. More than that, i believe we in congress have a duty to demand accountability and safeguard one of our nations highest principles, that no one is above the law. From everything that i have heard you say here today, it is clear that everyone else would
have been prosecuted based on the evidence available in your report. It now falls on us to hold President Trump accountable. Thank you for being here. Chairman, i yield back. Mr. Chairman, the gentle lady yields back. I just want to think the chairman. After this was first built, we both get in time. Our side got our 5 minutes in. Also, mr. Miller, thank you for being here. I joined the chairman and thanking you for being here. Thank you. Director mueller, we think you for attending todays hearing. Before we conclude, i ask everyone to please remain seated and quiet while the witness exits the room. [applause] bret after three hours and 34 minutes, the testimony of former special Counsel Robert Mueller, most recently in this time pointing back to this
448page report, often asking House Members to repeat questions and specific citations. Kind of a halting, Staccato Presentation that was at times pretty tough to follow. Before this hearing, as we talked about from democrats, they wanted americans to see the movie. To animate the mueller report. Today, after this hearing, they maybe saying the book is much better than the movie. Robert mueller was clearly a reluctant witness. We now perhaps see why. He did say the report did not exonerate President Trump, which was the most retweeted moment of this entire hearing. But there were several times he contradicted what was in the report. One of the biggest was in this section of the hearing when he was asked by democratic congressman ted lieu if he wasnt for the office of legal guidance, would he have recommended an adjustment for obstruction of justice. He said yes. He said they took the guidance to consider that they could
never die the present, and that mueller told him the olc was not the only reason he chose not to recommend an indictment. Just guidance. He was called out on that by congressman debbie lesko of arizona. This hearing focused on obstruction of justice. We are told the Intel Committee this afternoon will focus more on the russian interference in volume one. But it was painful at times. Martha it was painful at times. I think that olc discrepancy is perhaps one of legally, one of the most interesting moments we watched unfold today. We also have to politically remember that the folks outside the room are really the ones who are most important in terms of what happens from here. Was there a winner today . Did democrats win this . The republicans win this . Primary chairman nadler pushed very hard for this hearing. So he will be questioning himself, perhaps. Was it worth it . Did it enhance or detract from the argument that mueller had laid breadcrumbs for them . And it is now Congress Duty to follow those breadcrumbs where
they lead. I. E. , potentially impeachment proceedings, or at least investigation. Are the American People going to be inclined to want to see more of this investigation after today . Or will they agree with the cbs poll be put up earlier that said 53 of americans say its time to drop this . That its time to move on . What does nancy pelosi say when she watches this and gathers with her members after all of this . Is she going to say its time to move on, or did they get what they want to connect what about the g. O. P. . What are the things that kept prodding at, whether he had looked into the origins of this in the station. When it came to Christopher Steele on the dossier, when it came to all of that, he kept saying bret fusion gps. Martha exactly, glenn simpson. Out of my purview, that wasnt part of my investigation. Parts of that seem too obvious would be part of the report. But when they tried to nail down things, they seem to fall outside of his purview. A lot of questions remain here. Catherine herridge has been watching all this along with a spear lets bring in catherine
from outside the hearing room this afternoon. Catherine . Thank you, martha, good afternoon paid the former special Counsel Robert Mueller testified that he felt handcuffed by Justice Department legal opinion that prohibits the indictment of a sitting president , and the key section of the exchange with the democratic chairman jerry nadler came when he asked if the president could be indicted once he left office. And Robert Mueller responded, yes. But thats in conflict with testimony from the Attorney General william barr earlier this year, who said that, in march, mueller told him and others on a Conference Call that there were evidence issues. That it was not the Justice Departments legal opinion that was blocking his actions. What we heard consistently from democrats, they said to mueller, anyone else would have been indicted on obstruction, except this is the president of the United States. But mueller also testified that in no way was his investigation over the last two years ever blocked or impeded. Consistently what we heard from republicans is that there were double standards. Congressman John Ratcliffe pressed mueller on what Justice Department policy allowed him to make his decision and his statements on the issue of obstruction. That he did not exonerate the president but they did not bring criminal charges. And Robert Mueller could not point to that policy, because as ratcliff said, it does not exist. But we heard from congressman jim jordan but there was a double standard. He pressed the Special Counsel on this intelligence asset, someone who started the ball running on the whole russia investigation. Special counsel mueller said that he could not answer that question. Jordan responded, multiple Trump Campaign associates were prosecuted for lying to the Special Counsel, yet you say in
your report that he lied to the fbi, yet he was not prosecuted. Theres an exchange that my going to the radar but it caught my attention because it appeared to be an effort to possibly lay a trap for the Special Counsel. What im getting at is misleading statements to members of congress. This was the exchange with republican congressman stupid. He asked Special Counsel mueller about this meeting on may 16th. Right before he was appointed. Whether he had interviewed to the fbi director with the president. He said, no, he was in that meeting to provide input, who should be the fbi director. Then a credible question, he said, you tell the Vice President of this was the one job you would come back for . In the Special Counsel said, i do not recall. That might be an important Exchange Going forward, martha and bret. Catherine, thank you. Democrat david axelrod, Senior Advisor to president obama, treated out at the end of this hearing, this is very, very painful. Lets bring in former independent counsel kenneth starr. Hes also a fox news contributo contributor. Ken, you are mentioned a couple times in this hearing. Your thoughts on this days testimony . One of the critical things, guys, is the very idea of book n exoneration is very unfortunate. Bob mueller should not have written book 2. That came out very early on in the hearing. Congressman ratcliff from texas was extremely clear in saying, this is not your job. Its not just the focus on exoneration are not exoneration. Its the very idea they were going to lay out all this evidence with an opportunity to respond on the part of the president. That its fundamentally not only unfair, and the fact that its fundamentally unfair is why this report was read dramatically tot over again, it simply not appropriate. So im going to be very blunt bob mueller did not give a good reason for why he wrote, and his staff wrote, the second volume. Which is what this hearing was all about. The second volume, the second part of his report, was on obstructive acts. And there is inconsistency with exactly what was the conclusion. And, why did he not do what the prosecutor was charged with doing . What he was charged with doing was to it, in fact, make a determination of whether there was a chargeable offense. Of course, he failed to do that. I think that should be frustrating to everyone. It was certainly frustrating to Attorney General barr. Thats what you were hired to do. Let the record also show that in terms of the whole obstruction of jus